DOCSLIB.ORG

15 Asexual Relationships I7hat Does Asexuality Have to Do with Polyamory?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
15 Asexual Relationships I7hat Does Asexuality Have to Do with Polyamory? 15 Asexual Relationships I7hat Does Asexuality Have to Do with Polyamory? Kristin S. Scherrer Popular understandings about polyamories and non-monogamies largely focus on sex and sexual intimacy.l Yet, to what extent do these ideas need to necessarily accompany each other? ri7hat might a discussion of polyamory look like without a focus on sexual behaviors? An investigation of asexual identities reveals new possibilities for conceptualizing polyamo- ries and non-monogamies. In this chapter I provide a brief description of the intersections of asexual identity and polyamory, an under-represented topic in academic literature. This chapter contributes to a burgeoning field of scholarship on polyamories through a description of how individuals with asexual identities inform understandings of polyamory and monog- amn opening up space to consider the intricacies of relationships. Asexuality has been explored in academic scholarship along several dimensions, including as an identity (Jay,2003; Prause and Graham,2007; Scherrer, 2008), as a lack of desire for sexual behaviors (Bogaert, 2004; 2006), and within specialized populations, such as persons with disabilities (Milligan and Neufeldt,2001l or lesbians (Rothblum and Brehony, 1,993). Here, I focus my analysis on individuals with asexual identities, as individ- uals who are able to uniquely shed light on the construction of relationships where sex and/or sexual intimacy are generally explicitly absent. Elsewhere, I describe that, in addition to an asexual identity, another salient identity for asexual individuals may be a romantic or aromantic identity, which designates an interest (or lack thereof) in monogamous, intimate relation- ships (Scherrer, 2008). Other work extends this finding, showing that some asexual identified individuals describe current or idealized relationships that fit definitions of polyamorous relationships (Scherrer, in press). Here, I explore how taking on an identity that revolves around a lack of sexual desire matters for how individuals construct relationships. To better understand asexual identities, I conducted an Internet survey with 102 self-identified asexual individuals. Participants were recruited from asexuality.org, a main Internet networking website for asexual identi- 6ed individuals. The survey asked open ended questions about a variety of topics including demographics, asexual identit6 and relationships. Data were analyzed using open and focused coding (Emerson, Fretz and Shaw, Asexual Relationships 155 1995). (For more details_of my methodology and sample, see Scherrer, 200g, and scherrer, in press.) In.this chaprer, I frimarily draw from the foriowing questions: 'what are the distinctions, in your mind, between intimate rela- ;In tionships, friendships-and romantic partnerships?,, an ideal world, what would a relationship look like for you?', and, 'would you clescribe yourself as interested in a monogamous, intimate rerationshipi wrry or why not?, RELATIONSHIPS WITHOUT SEX The presence of sexual behaviors is often a defining characteristic of inti- mate relationships (Rothblum and Brehony, 1993).lhis char"ceristic can create challenges for asexual individuars,'whose id.ntity revolves around the irrelevance of sexual desire or attracrion in their lives. Some partici- pants describe the relevance of sexual behaviors as a distinguishing.h"rr.- teristic for types of relationships. one example of this is Li-a, a 45-year=old white woman, who indicates that sexual intimacy is a key component in distinguishing berween friendships and intimate o. romr.,tic relaiionships. She says: Intimate relationships and romantic partnerships are the same thing to me, it means that you are willing to share in sixual activities to some degree, from kissing to intercourie. Friendships can be with either sex, with persons who share your interests in some way and will spend time with you. These examples may indicate that, for an individual whose identity revolves around an absence of interest in sex, intimate or romantic relationships may feel unavailable. while Lia and others see intimare and romantic relationships as simi- larly involving sexual behaviors, others distinguish intimate anl romantic relationships. one example of this is Linda, u, 1g-y.rr-old white woman, who states: I'd say intimate relationships would invorve sexual activity and kissing. It's harder for me to define the difference between friends and romantic partners though. For me, a romantic relationship would be more physi_ cal and have more trust involved on my part th"n friendsrrips . I see friendships wirh more joking and chatiing, and romantic reiationships with all of that plus discussions and connections on a deeper level. vhile Linda first describes how intimate relationships usually characrer- istically involve sexual behavior, she then makes space in her description for relationships that are 'deeper' than friendships, yet .rot .r..errarily involving sexual behaviors. In this way, Linda, ,rrd oth".r, carefully create '1.56 Kristin S. Scherrer space for emotionally deep, trusting relationships that do not depend on sexual behaviors. In contrast to these participants, others describe the distinctions between relationships as more complicated. Charles, a 24-year-old white man, describes the distinctions between intimate relationships, friendships and romantic partnerships as, 'Only a linguistic one. I think that they represent ways to divide relationships that are based on sexuality, but that aren't nec- essarily that useful or accurate for asexual people.' Similarly, Casey, a 24 year-old-white woman, states: 'I think the standard friendship vs. romance is a spectrum, not a binary, and it can be difficult to pin any given relation- ship down.' Charles and Casey both illustrate a common sentiment-that the distinctions between types of relationships can be challenging to cate- gorize,particularly for asexual individuals whose relationships may be less likely to include sexual behaviors. Perhaps because the language ofrelation- ships is highly dependent on the presence or absence of sexual behaviors, certain types of relationships are less readily discursively 'available' to asex- ual individuals. This may require asexual individuals to rewrite language to more accurately describe their relationships, much as Ritchie and Barker (2006) describe for individuals in polyamorous communities. MONOGAMY IN ASEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS For those participants who expressed an interest in romantic or intimate relationships, monogamy often figures centrally. For instance,Elena, a 24 year old white woman, said that, 'I sometimes imagine an'ideal' relation- ship. However, I don't have to say much about it, except that it is hetero- sexual, monogamous, and I have a very sincere understanding partner.' Similarly, Rose, a 20 year old white woman says, 'I want to have a deep, monogamous relationship with a man, but don't wish to engage in sexual activities with him or anyone else.' The centrality of heterosexuality and monogamy for the relationships of many asexual individuals is further sup- ported elsewhere (Scherrer, 2008; in press). Despite monogamy's relatively prominent role as an idealized relation- ship component, monogamy is also often described as challenging' One example of this is Sarah, aZ2-year-old white woman, who describes herself as interested in a monogamous intimate relationship, 'as long as it was nonsexual.' She later explains that this question was challenging to answer because, 'I only understand the word'monogamous' in a sexual way.' Simi- larln Alex, a-1.9-year-old white man, states that he is not interested in a monogamous intimate relationship. 'I can have several intimate relation- ships without it ever being considered cheating, and if it were monoga- mous, then it would restrict my friendships with other people.' In other words, while Alex and Sarah have different perspectives on the desir- ability of monogamy for their own relationships, they both indicate that Asexual Relationships l57 monogamy is virtualry unintelrigibre outside perhaps of its relationship to sexual behavior' as with ,o-"riri. undlrrrr,,,rt. rerationships, rhe concept of monogamy is so imbued *rtt, r."rrtity and sexual b.h";-i; that it be a challenging term for individuair;'hr may are not inrerested sexual aspects of relationships to wield. ASEXUAL NON-MONOGAMIES while monogamy is important for some participants, others describe romantic or relatiorrar their interests as.poryamorous or non-monogamous. These non-monogamous -ior-r"or asexual indiviiuars r.p..r..rr poryr*- orous relarionships t-ha1,ar1-1s of y.t-ur."plored in academic literature. rvhen asked about his idear ,"lutiorrrhip,thurr.r, a 24-year-ord said, 'I'm white man de'nitely inrerested i" i"i*rte rerationship. I'm much more polyamgrglr;, "" rillgrr, Id say E.dward, a 21_year_ola _nir._rn, similarly describes polyamory as his ideal ,.lrrifrrhip for_. I am interested in more intimate rerationships than most peopre seek out. This could be.monogamous or a group relationship (a tionship with single rela_ murtipre peopre *ho ,r. a, devoted to tha.n relationslr,o:.y!*: "rih other rather Sulfple p.opf. are devoted to each orher on an individual basis). t wourd idearv rike. a rerationship where partici_ pants were a, completely owned by th" relationship;r; w^hl;. while Edward does not use the.term 'polyamory, relationship, to describe his ideal his inrerests in.murtipl. who other f*pr. are deyoted to each closely mirrors definitions ;? (Haritaworn, Klesse,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Asexuality 101
    BY THE NUMBERS Asexual people (or aces) experience little or no 28% sexual attraction. While most asexual people desire emotionally intimate relationships, they are not drawn to sex as a way to express that intimacy. of the community is 18 or younger ASEXUALITY ISN’T ACES MIGHT 32% Abstinence because of Want friendship, a bad relationship understanding, and Abstinence because of empathy religious reasons Fall in love of the community are between 19 and 21 Celibacy Experience arousal and Sexual repression, orgasm aversion, or Masturbate 19% dysfunction Have sex Loss of libido due to Not have sex age or circumstance Be of any gender, age, Fear of intimacy or background of the community are currently Inability to find a Have a spouse and/or in high school partner children 40% of the community are in college Aromantic – people who experience little or no romantic 20% attraction and are content with close friendships and other non-romantic relationships. Demisexual – people who only experience sexual attraction of the community identify as once they form a strong emotional connection with the person. transgender or are questioning Grey-A – people who identify somewhere between sexual and their gender identity asexual on the sexuality spectrum. 41% Queerplatonic – One type of non-romantic relationship where there is an intense emotional connection going beyond what is traditionally thought of as friendship. Romantic orientations – Aces commonly use hetero-, homo-, of the community identify as part of the LGBT community bi-, and pan- in front of the word romantic to describe who they experience romantic attraction to. Source: Asexy Community Census http://www.tinyurl.com/AsexyCensusResults Asexual Awareness Week Community Engagement Series – Trevor Project | Last Updated April 2012 ACE SPECIFIC Feeling e mpty, isolated, Some aces voice a fear of ISSUES and/or alone.
    [Show full text]
  • Asexuality: a Mixed-Methods Approach
    Arch Sex Behav (2010) 39:599–618 DOI 10.1007/s10508-008-9434-x ORIGINAL PAPER Asexuality: A Mixed-Methods Approach Lori A. Brotto Æ Gail Knudson Æ Jess Inskip Æ Katherine Rhodes Æ Yvonne Erskine Received: 13 November 2007 / Revised: 20 June 2008 / Accepted: 9 August 2008 / Published online: 11 December 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 Abstract Current definitions of asexuality focus on sexual having to ‘‘negotiate’’ sexual activity. There were not higher attraction, sexual behavior, and lack of sexual orientation or rates of psychopathology among asexuals; however, a subset sexual excitation; however, the extent to which these defi- might fit the criteria for Schizoid Personality Disorder. There nitions are accepted by self-identified asexuals is unknown. was also strong opposition to viewing asexuality as an ex- The goal of Study 1 was to examine relationship character- treme case of sexual desire disorder. Finally, asexuals were istics, frequency of sexual behaviors, sexual difficulties and very motivated to liaise with sex researchers to further the distress, psychopathology, interpersonal functioning, and scientific study of asexuality. alexithymia in 187 asexuals recruited from the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network (AVEN). Asexual men Keywords Asexuality Á Sexual identity Á Sexual (n = 54) and women (n = 133) completed validated ques- orientation Á Sexual attraction Á Romantic attraction Á tionnaires online. Sexual response was lower than normative Qualitative methodology data and was not experienced as distressing, and masturba- tion frequency in males was similar to available data for sexual men. Social withdrawal was the most elevated per- Introduction sonality subscale; however, interpersonal functioning was in the normal range.
    [Show full text]
  • What Can Asexuality Offer Sociology? Insights from the 2017 Asexual Community Census
    Suggested citation: Carroll, Megan. (2020). What can asexuality offer sociology? Insights from the 2017 Asexual Community Census. Manuscript submitted for publication, California State University, San Bernardino, California. What Can Asexuality Offer Sociology? Insights from the 2017 Asexual Community Census Megan Carroll, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Sociology California State University - San Bernardino Contact: Megan Carroll, Department of Sociology, California State University – San Bernardino, 5500 University Parkway SB327, San Bernardino, CA 92407-2397, [email protected] 2 *** In August 2018, the ASA Section on Sociology of Sexualities hosted a preconference before the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association to gather insights and showcase the work of top contributors of sociological work on sexualities. Outstanding work from across the discipline was featured in panels, workshops, and roundtables across the two days of conferencing, and critical questions of race, politics, and violence were deservedly prioritized amid an increasingly urgent political climate. While this preconference served to advance the discipline’s efforts toward generating knowledge and healing social divides, it also symbolized the range of American sociology’s contributions to interdisciplinary knowledge on sexuality. Missing from the work presented at the pre-conference was any mention of asexualities. Sociological insights on asexuality (i.e. a lack of sexual attraction) have been very limited. While some sociologists have devoted attention toward asexualities in their work (e.g. Carrigan 2011; Cuthbert 2017; Dawson, Scott, and McDonnell 2018; Poston and Baumle 2010; Scherrer and Pfeffer 2017; Simula, Sumerau, and Miller 2019; Sumerau et al. 2018; Troia 2018; Vares 2018), the field more often contributes to the invisibility of asexuality than sheds light on it.
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Communication, Including Nonverbal ­Dimensions Communication
    CHAPTER Sexual 3 Communication FEATURES CHAPTER OBJECTIVES Multicultural Describe the process of sexual communication, including nonverbal Dimensions communication. Female and Male Subcultures? 1 Identify barriers to sexual communication, including gender Communication differences, attitudes about sexuality, and sexual language. Dimensions 2 Adult Sexting Discuss techniques for improving sexual communication. Ethical Dimensions ? Ethics, 3 ? Communication, and Date Rape Gender Dimensions Sexual Behavior in Marriage Communication go.jblearning.com/dimensions5e g o . Dimensions j b e l e 5 Attitudes About Sexuality a s Clarity in Sexual r n n io ing ns Communication .com/dime Learning Assertiveness Global Dimensions: International Differences in Discussing Sexuality Global Dimensions International Differences in Discussing Sexuality Communication Dimensions Guidelines for Healthy Sexual Communication © 2014 Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. Content not for sale or distribution. 48510_CH03_Pass3.indd 68 11/30/12 3:44 PM INTRODUCTION wo for the Road (1967) is a movie starring Audrey Hepburn as Joanna and Albert Finney as Mark. When they first meet on the T road in Europe, Joanna is in a touring girls’ choir and Mark is a struggling architect. The film follows their life together—through court- ship and marriage, infidelity, and parenthood—all on the road in a vari- ety of cars (hence the title), through a score of time-shifting vignettes. The film presents a lovely portrayal of a young couple growing in— and eventually out of—love. It not only shows the life cycle of a 12-year relationship, but also brilliantly portrays how communication changes during that life cycle. As the couple meets and falls in love at a dizzying pace, conversation flows.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meaning of Romantic Love in Contemporary Society
    Linfield University DigitalCommons@Linfield Senior Theses Student Scholarship & Creative Works 5-28-2020 The Evolution of Love: The Meaning of Romantic Love in Contemporary Society Jessica Salas Linfield College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/soanstud_theses Part of the Gender and Sexuality Commons, Race and Ethnicity Commons, and the Sociology of Culture Commons Recommended Citation Salas, Jessica, "The Evolution of Love: The Meaning of Romantic Love in Contemporary Society" (2020). Senior Theses. 13. https://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/soanstud_theses/13 This Thesis (Open Access) is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It is brought to you for free via open access, courtesy of DigitalCommons@Linfield, with permission from the rights-holder(s). Your use of this Thesis (Open Access) must comply with the Terms of Use for material posted in DigitalCommons@Linfield, or with other stated terms (such as a Creative Commons license) indicated in the record and/or on the work itself. For more information, or if you have questions about permitted uses, please contact [email protected]. Running head: ROMANTIC ATTITUDES AT THE INTERSECTION OF GENDER, RACE, AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS SALAS 1 The Evolution of Love: The Meaning of Romantic Love in Contemporary Society Jessica Salas Linfield College Department of Sociology and Anthropology 28 May 2020 THESIS COPYRIGHT PERMISSIONS Please read this document carefully before signing. If you have questions about any of these permissions, please contact the DigitalCommons Coordinator. Title of the Thesis: _____________________________________________________________ Author’s Name: (Last name, first name) _____________________________________________________________ Advisor’s Name _____________________________________________________________ DigitalCommons@Linfield (DC@L) is our web-based, open access-compliant institutional repository for digital content produced by Linfield faculty, students, staff, and their collaborators.
    [Show full text]
  • SOC-2210: Dating and Intimate Relationships 1
    SOC-2210: Dating and Intimate Relationships 1 SOC-2210: DATING AND INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS Cuyahoga Community College Viewing: SOC-2210 : Dating and Intimate Relationships Board of Trustees: March 2021 Academic Term: Fall 2021 Subject Code SOC - Sociology Course Number: 2210 Title: Dating and Intimate Relationships Catalog Description: Intimate relationships studied on life course continuum from early to late adulthood, taking into consideration profound effects exerted by ethnicity, race, gender, human sexuality, socioeconomic status, age and place of residency. Analysis of characteristics and trends related to various types of intimate relationships including friendship, dating, cohabitation, and marriage. Critical issues considered are relationship violence, gender identity, relationship dissolution, and/or resolution. Students use the concept of sociological imagination, public issues, and personal troubles to link events in society to the state of intimate relationships in America today with emphasis on the role of mass media and social media. Credit Hour(s): 3 Lecture Hour(s): 3 Requisites Prerequisite and Corequisite SOC-1010 Introductory Sociology, or SOC-101H Honors Introductory Sociology, or ANTH-1010 Cultural Anthropology, or PSY-1010 General Psychology, or PSY-101H Honors General Psychology; and ENG-1010 College Composition I, or ENG-101H Honors College Composition I. Outcomes Course Outcome(s): Identify and discuss some of the interdisciplinary social scientific theoretical perspectives, principles, concepts, and research that pertain to relationship trends and lifestyle choices people make in the United States. Essential Learning Outcome Mapping: Critical/Creative Thinking: Analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information in order to consider problems/ideas and transform them in innovative or imaginative ways. Written Communication: Demonstrate effective written communication for an intended audience that follows genre/disciplinary conventions that reflect clarity, organization, and editing skills.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.PREDICTORS of QUALITY of INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS
    Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal Sistema de Información Científica Pereira, Henrique; Cardoso, Fernando; Afonso, Rosa Marina; Esgalhado, Maria da Graça PREDICTORS OF QUALITY OF INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG OLDER PEOPLE International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, vol. 4, núm. 1, 2010, pp. 135-141 Asociación Nacional de Psicología Evolutiva y Educativa de la Infancia, Adolescencia y Mayores Badajoz, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=349832327013 International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology, ISSN (Printed Version): 0214-9877 [email protected] Asociación Nacional de Psicología Evolutiva y Educativa de la Infancia, Adolescencia y Mayores España How to cite Complete issue More information about this article Journal's homepage www.redalyc.org Non-Profit Academic Project, developed under the Open Acces Initiative PSICOLOGÍA POSITIVA, NUEVAS TECNOLOGÍAS Y REALIDAD ACTUAL PREDICTORS OF QUALITY OF INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG OLDER PEOPLE Henrique Pereira (University of Beira Interior & Unidade de Investigação em Psicologia e Saúde – UIPES - Portugal) [email protected] Fernando Cardoso (Institute of Applied Psychology – ISPA - Portugal) Rosa Marina Afonso (University of Beira Interior – Portugal & Unidade de Investigação e Formação em Adultos e Idosos (UNIFAI) Maria da Graça Esgalhado (University of Beira Interior – Portugal & Instituto de Psicologia Cognitiva, Desenvolvimento Vocacional e Social (IPGDVS) Abstract. Traditional research has paid very little attention to aspects of human sexuality among older people. Therefore, in this study, our aim was to utilize psychosocial indicators to research how emotional and sexual variables can predict better quality of intimate relationship among the elderly. Participated in this study 101 elderly people (52 men, and 49 women) aged between 65 and 84 years of age (mean = 71,15, DS = 5,14).
    [Show full text]
  • From Romantic Jealousy to Sympathetic Joy: Monogamy, Polyamory, and Beyond Jorge N
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by California Institute of Integral Studies libraries Digital Commons @ CIIS International Journal of Transpersonal Studies Advance Publication Archive 2019 From Romantic Jealousy to Sympathetic Joy: Monogamy, Polyamory, and Beyond Jorge N. Ferrer Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/advance-archive Part of the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons, Philosophy Commons, Religion Commons, and the Transpersonal Psychology Commons From Romantic Jealousy to Sympathetic Joy: Monogamy, Polyamory, and Beyond Jorge N. Ferrer. Cailornia Institute of Integral Studies San Francisco, CA, USA This paper explores how the extension of contemplative qualities to intimate relationships can transform human sexual/emotional responses and relationship choices. The paper reviews contemporary findings from the field of evolutionary psychology on the twin origins of jealousy and monogamy, argues for the possibility to transform jealousy into sympathetic joy (or compersion), addresses the common objections against polyamory (or nonmonogamy), and challenges the culturally prevalent belief that the only spiritually correct sexual options are either celibacy or (lifelong or serial) monogamy. To conclude, it is suggested that the cultivation of sympathetic joy in intimate bonds can pave the way to overcome the problematic dichotomy between monogamy and polyamory, grounding individuals in a radical openness to the dynamic unfolding of life
    [Show full text]
  • Flag Definitions
    Flag Definitions Rainbow Flag : The rainbow flag, commonly known as the gay pride flag or LGBTQ pride flag, is a symbol of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer pride and LGBTQ social movements. Always has red at the top and violet at the bottom. It represents the diversity of gays and lesbians around the world. Bisexual Pride Flag: Bisexuality is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behaviour toward both males and females, or to more than one sex or gender. Pink represents sexual attraction to the same sex only (gay and lesbian). Blue represents sexual attraction to the opposite sex only (Straight). Purple represents sexual attraction to both sexes (bi). The key to understanding the symbolism of the Bisexual flag is to know that the purple pixels of colour blend unnoticeably into both pink and blue, just as in the “real world” where bi people blend unnoticeably into both the gay/lesbian and straight communities. Transgender Pride Flag: Transgender people have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from their assigned sex. Blue stripes at top and bottom is the traditional colour for baby boys. Pink stipes next to them are the traditional colour for baby girls. White stripe in the middle is for people that are nonbinary, feel that they don’t have a gender. The pattern is such that no matter which way you fly it, it is always correct, signifying us finding correctness in our lives. Intersex Pride Flag: Intersex people are those who do not exhibit all the biological characteristics of male or female, or exhibit a combination of characteristics, at birth.
    [Show full text]
  • Psychotherapists' Beliefs and Attitudes Towards
    PSYCHOTHERAPISTS’ BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS POLYAMORY A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE TEXAS WOMAN’S UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES BY SHANNON L. STAVINOHA, M.A. DENTON, TEXAS AUGUST 2017 TEXAS WOMAN’S UNIVERSITY DENTON, TEXAS July 01, 2016 To the Dean of the Graduate School: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Shannon L. Stavinoha entitled “Psychotherapists’ Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Polyamory.” I have examined this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy with a major in Counseling Psychology. _______________________________ Jeff Harris, Ph.D., Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: ____________________________________ Debra Mollen, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Claudia Porras Pyland, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Lisa Rosen, Ph.D. ____________________________________ Shannon Scott, Ph.D., Department Chair Accepted: _______________________________ Dean of the Graduate School Copyright © Shannon L. Stavinoha, 2016 all right reserved. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge and share my personal gratitude with those who were involved in this project. I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Harris for his valuable assistance, tireless guidance, patience, and belief in me. I would also like to acknowledge the following professors at Texas Woman's University: Dr. Stabb, Dr. Rubin, and Dr. Mollen for their support and guidance. I am grateful to Dr. Rosen and Dr. Porras-Pyland, who served as valuable members of my dissertation committee. I would like to thank my mother, my eternal cheerleader, for walking by my side through all the ups and the downs and always supporting me; I owe it all to you.
    [Show full text]
  • Consensual Non-Monogamy and the New Sexual Ethos
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2012 The Casualization of Intimacy: Consensual Non-Monogamy and the New Sexual Ethos Brittany Griebling University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Communication Commons, and the Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Commons Recommended Citation Griebling, Brittany, "The Casualization of Intimacy: Consensual Non-Monogamy and the New Sexual Ethos" (2012). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 638. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/638 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/638 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Casualization of Intimacy: Consensual Non-Monogamy and the New Sexual Ethos Abstract This dissertation explores the discursive construction of consensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationships. The focus is limited to non-monogamists involved in primary, committed dyadic relationships who also pursue secondary, more casual partners. Using the framework of "casualization," the dissertation carries out a discourse analysis of 25 in-depth interviews with straight and LGBT individuals and couples involved in CNM relationships. The term casualization of intimacy makes an analogy between the evolving norms of private life and the casualization of labor. For scholars of work in a global economy, the casualization of labor refers to decreasing job security for workers, coupled with increasing productivity and the demand for new skills. The casualization of intimacy means that our personal lives, like our work lives, are characterized by precarity, the need for flexibility, the feminization of communication, and the valorization of individual "hard work." Analysis of interviews with non- monogamists demonstrates a construction of CNM in line with casualization.
    [Show full text]
  • Genders & Sexualities Terms
    GENDERS & SEXUALITIES TERMS All terms should be evaluated by your local community to determine what best fits. As with all language, the communities that utilize these and other words may have different meanings and reasons for using different terminology within different groups. Agender: a person who does not identify with a gender identity or gender expression; some agender-identifying people consider themselves gender neutral, genderless, and/or non- binary, while some consider “agender” to be their gender identity. Ally/Accomplice: a person who recognizes their privilege and is actively engaged in a community of resistance to dismantle the systems of oppression. They do not show up to “help” or participate as a way to make themselves feel less guilty about privilege but are able to lean into discomfort and have hard conversations about being held accountable and the ways they must use their privilege and/or social capital for the true liberation of oppressed communities. Androgynous: a person who expresses or presents merged socially-defined masculine and feminine characteristics, or mainly neutral characteristics. Asexual: having a lack of (or low level of) sexual attraction to others and/or a lack of interest or desire for sex or sexual partners. Asexuality exists on a spectrum from people who experience no sexual attraction nor have any desire for sex, to those who experience low levels of sexual attraction and only after significant amounts of time. Many of these different places on the spectrum have their own identity labels. Another term used within the asexual community is “ace,” meaning someone who is asexual.
    [Show full text]